Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Smartphone Attachment Can Test For HIV In 15 Minutes

Posted by timothy on from the text-anxiety dept.

stephendavion writes A team of researchers from Columbia University have developed a device that can be plugged into a smartphone and used to quickly test for HIV and syphilis. The mobile device tests for three infectious disease markers in just 15 minutes by using a finger-prick of blood, and draws all the power it needs from the smartphone, Science Daily reports. The accessory costs an estimated $34 to make and is capable of replicating tests done in a laboratory using equipment that costs many thousands of dollars.

84 comments

  1. Better hurry up and buy that patent by gatkinso · · Score: 0

    Says an evil pharma CEO....

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:Better hurry up and buy that patent by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      The accessory costs an estimated $34 to make

      which means it will cost $34,000

    2. Re:Better hurry up and buy that patent by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... in the U.S.A. but about 70$ in Canada.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  2. Sex tourist's dream... by Rick+in+China · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Imagine if you can prick the finger of a hooker in a Pattaya bar while you're drinking, "just as a joke!", and figure out whether you need to strap on a condom or not. Wonderful invention for all the people who need immediate HIV tests for their partners! Yay for sex tourism!

    Until it goes wrong and doesn't work. This type of thing is a litigation nightmare. Looks like vaporware to me, and the actual legitimate applications seem few.

    1. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by Anon-Admin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Honestly I can see a lot of good uses for it. From testing in third world countries by Doctors without borders to testing a partner before you go without a condom. Most people get to know each other before they drop the condoms but how many actually go down and get tested? I know I do and I ask my partners to before we drop the condom but from most peoples reaction I can tell that it is not a common request.

      Hell how many get regularly tested? I get tested a couple of times a year but from what I can tell most don't and have no real idea what their status is. Some are afraid of getting tested for fear of being labeled or having that status known by the government, insurance, or anyone else. This allows personal, anonymous testing. So something like this could be a great thing to have.

      You know the second it becomes available it will be used by insurance companies during the initial physical. There is a market for such a device and if it makes it to production I see it being a BIG seller.

    2. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Informative

      if an HIV test helps you decide whether or not to wear a cover, then you're one risky mofo.

    3. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like some twit who has never had to worry about HIV. Sometimes all it takes is someone telling 'one little white lie' and the next thing you know you're getting a test because your partner, slept with someone who slept with someone, etc. There are 15 minute tests available right now, that I've taken yearly to make sure I'm in good health and my partner(s) are too, available at my local Equality Center, for free.

      Posted anonymously because I have coworkers who know my account on here.

    4. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Imagine if you can prick the finger of a hooker in a Pattaya bar while you're drinking, "just as a joke!", and figure out whether you need to strap on a condom or not. Wonderful invention for all the people who need immediate HIV tests for their partners! Yay for sex tourism!

      Except that STDs likely take a specific gestation period to start showing up on tests like these. If you choose to skip the condom when engaging with a sex worker, that's your dice to roll.

      Until it goes wrong and doesn't work. This type of thing is a litigation nightmare. Looks like vaporware to me, and the actual legitimate applications seem few.

      Unless some idiot is going to slap a 100% STD-free guarantee behind this test, there is nothing to litigate. This is a product and service that should not be guaranteed, nor meant to replace a medical specialist or doctor. In that sense, it has every right to thrive and survive right next to the home pregnancy kits.

      As far as the applications? Take a look at the current STD landscape and you tell me if there are applications. Humans are stupid, ignorant, animals who have unprotected sex because they believe bad shit always happens to "someone else". There, I've just established the justification to apply this to the human race.

    5. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Until it goes wrong and doesn't work. This type of thing is a litigation nightmare. Looks like vaporware to me, and the actual legitimate applications seem few.

      Hopefully the folks working on the device favoured the false positives.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    6. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... whether you need to strap on a condom or not.

      What the heck kind of a condom do you use?
      Or is your dick too short to support one?

    7. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like some twit who has never had to worry about HIV. Sometimes all it takes is someone telling 'one little white lie' and the next thing you know you're getting a test because your partner, slept with someone who slept with someone, etc. There are 15 minute tests available right now, that I've taken yearly to make sure I'm in good health and my partner(s) are too, available at my local Equality Center, for free.

      Posted anonymously because I have coworkers who know my account on here.

      When using the term partners instead of partner, you tend to take your own risks when it comes to little white lies. If you don't want to worry about HIV, then perhaps a more traditional (read: monogamous) relationship would be more fitting for you.

      Yeah yeah yeah, I know. Monogamy is a disgusting concept to anyone under 30 these days Go figure the Tinder society feels the need to develop fucking smartphone STD testers ready in minutes.

    8. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Unless it counts viral load (which I doubt, but not RTFA), I wouldn't trust it for that.

      The screening tests need about 6 months of infection to be reliable.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    9. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      Then again...there is always the common sense approach, of not sticking your dick into someone that engages in risky behavior for getting HIV.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, you can have multiple partners in a specific time period and stay monogamous with each one. I had 3 partners in a year time frame and was monogamous with each one while we dated.

    11. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      How do you determine that they have never engaged in risky behavior?
      Have you ever asked a partner about all there past sexual experiences?
      Have you ever been tested for HIV?
      If not and if you have had sexual partners in your life then you may have been exposed.
      Considering the fact that 14% of the people with HIV do not know they have it. Your partner may not even know they have it and may have never been tested to find out.

      The only "risky" behavior is having unprotected sex without knowing the persons status via testing.

    12. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monogamy is a disgusting concept to anyone under 30 these days

      You have never, ever encountered even the slightest whiff of evidence that this is a true statement. Nor did any of your fellow morons who were saying it twenty years ago, or thirty, or forty, and so on.

    13. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How do you determine that they have never engaged in risky behavior?

      That's easy. Anyone who lets cayenne8 stick his dick into them is engaging in risky behavior.

    14. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monogamy is a disgusting concept to anyone under 30 these days

      You have never, ever encountered even the slightest whiff of evidence that this is a true statement. Nor did any of your fellow morons who were saying it twenty years ago, or thirty, or forty, and so on.

      So this generation of hipsters created and latched on to massively popular shit like Tinder and Grindr, because they so interested in forming meaningful, loving, monogamous relationships, right?

      Yup, seems all those traditional dating portals that actually ask relevant questions are overrated and a waste of time. Just give me GPS radar that tells me if some random pussy or dick is within fucking distance, and reduce my decision making down to a picture and a swipe. Yup, good enough.

      Don't tell me shit hasn't changed. Wake the fuck up already, and remember why we're in this thread. Because someone feels society has a need for an STD test in a smartphone to deliver results within minutes. Gee, maybe that's because minutes is about how long courtships have been reduced to. Call it whatever you want in society, but this IS supply meeting demand. If you wanted evidence, there it is.

    15. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How do you determine that they have never engaged in risky behavior?

      It's really strange that "getting to know someone" has been thrown out the goddamn window in society as an option to mitigate this, along with any sort of trust.

      Don't even know why you would ask those questions without your handy dandy lie detector app running...perhaps we should have developed that first.

    16. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this generation of hipsters created and latched on to massively popular shit like Tinder and Grindr, because they so interested in forming meaningful, loving, monogamous relationships, right?

      If previous generations had had the technological infrastructure to create and use those apps, they would have done so. Hookup culture existed long before the phrase "hookup culture" was coined. What the fuck do you think was going on at Woodstock? At speakeasies? At every goddamned concert ever held?

      Yup, seems all those traditional dating portals that actually ask relevant questions are overrated and a waste of time. Just give me GPS radar that tells me if some random pussy or dick is within fucking distance, and reduce my decision making down to a picture and a swipe. Yup, good enough.

      Strawman arguments are lies. Also, explain the fact that those traditional dating portals are still around and in use by young people.

      Don't tell me shit hasn't changed.

      Shit HASN'T changed, and never will. The fact that you don't want to be told so is your own problem.

      Wake the fuck up already, and remember why we're in this thread. Because someone feels society has a need for an STD test in a smartphone to deliver results within minutes. Gee, maybe that's because minutes is about how long courtships have been reduced to.

      Or maybe it's because a medical test you can run in minutes using inexpensive equipment you already own is objectively more useful than one that takes days and requires paying hundreds of dollars for someone else to run on specialized equipment in a laboratory.

      Call it whatever you want in society, but this IS supply meeting demand. If you wanted evidence, there it is.

      The only evidence you've shown is evidence of the fact that you don't understand logic. The desire for a more efficient medical test is unrelated to any particular feelings about monogamy. Do you really think this test would not be useful to a monogamous couple who would like to quickly and privately ensure their mutual safety before they start having sex? You know that it would, but you'll pretend otherwise because you want to keep whining about the nonexistent problem you invented to distract yourself from your own insecurities.

    17. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or... if you want to make the morality police get their panties in a bunch and wring their hands about people "getting away" with "irresponsible" behavior... take Truvada daily as PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis), and fuck without fear.

      To date, there have been NO documented seroconversions by anyone who's taken Truvada at least every other day (and for at least a week prior to, and a month after, exposure to HIV).

      That said, there's one plausible "gotcha" -- discontinuing PrEP is likely to be increasingly dangerous over time. Remember, drugs like Truvada don't literally prevent HIV from infecting individual cells... they just prevent it from turning an infected host cell into a factory for manufacturing new HIV. It's possible that someone frequently exposed to HIV while taking Truvada might eventually end up with at least some HIV-infected cells. As long as you keep taking Truvada until all the infected cells die, you're unlikely to ever seroconvert .

      The catch is, not all cells are short-lived. Some, like nerve cells, can live for a VERY long time. Get one of THOSE cells infected, and you've probably just established your first viral reservoir. As long as you keep taking the Truvada daily and without fail, the HIV's replication will be suppressed, and it probably won't spread beyond a few infected cells. Kind of like a tumor that hasn't metastasized. On the other hand, if you ever STOP taking antiviral meds, the isolated HIV-infected cells might activate, and the infection would quickly spread throughout the body like a "normal" HIV infection.

      Keep in mind, as long as it doesn't trigger an immune response, someone hypothetically infected in this manner who maintains therapeutic levels of antivirals might continue to test negative by all current methods for *years*, if not forever. The only way to "know for sure" would be to discontinue the treatment, and watch to see whether he develops seroconversion syndrome within a few weeks.

      That's the bad news. The GOOD news is that such a hypothetically-infected individual would present effectively zero risk of infection to others (because the meds suppressed HIV to the point where it couldn't even spread within his own body, let alone to someone else). Where it's most likely to be relevant is when the current group of bleeding-edge 40/50somethings who constitute the current majority of guys taking Truvada for PrEP get 20-30 years older & decide their sex lives are effectively over anyway. If they've been having 10-20 years of high-risk sex on Truvada (or some newer drug), discontinuing it at that point could potentially put them at risk of developing a full-blown HIV infection from one of those isolated & suppressed viral reservoirs.

      Now, for some good news: the NEXT generation of PrEP drugs is likely to include at least one that's a so-called "integration inhibitor" (Tivicay/dolutegravir, or some analogue of it, being the most likely candidate at this time), and it might even be a long-acting injectable that provides 4-12 weeks of protection. Unlike Truvada, which merely prevents replication, integration inhibitors prevent HIV from being able to infect cells in the first place. They first became available about 8 years ago, and have become the de-facto "go-to" drugs that nearly everyone gets started on now, simply because they work so well for nearly everyone & have few (if any) meaningful side effects. That said, I'd personally feel better about a drug that combined an integration inhibitor with a NRTI, if only because NRTIs ALSO protect against hepatitis B and herpes (the FDA doesn't allow drug companies to advertise this, but if you Google it, at least a half-dozen studies over the past few years have noted that NRTIs like tenofovir, emtricitabine, and lamivudine all provide a high degree of protection from HBV and HSV).

      One caution: I'd personally be uncomfortable depending 100% upon a CCR5 inhibitor (like maraviroc/Selzentry) if you're planning to have high-risk sex. The problem with CCR5 inhibitors is that they w

    18. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really strange that "getting to know someone" has been thrown out the goddamn window in society as an option to mitigate this, along with any sort of trust.

      There's a word for guys who depended entirely upon trust and/or monogamy for protection: poz.

    19. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best 4th-generation PCR+Western Blot combo tests can detect a *possible* new HIV infection as little as 10 days after exposure, but can't confidently reassure you that you aren't infected until 6-12 weeks after exposure. The combo tests are basically a traditional western blot plus a first-generation viral load test. The catch is, they can't distinguish between HIV and background noise until your viral load exceeds 200 (the best-available CURRENT viral load tests used for actual HIV+ patients can measure down to about 3-5 copies/mL, and even the shittiest first-world viral load tests are now sensitive down to about 20-50 copies/mL).

      There's another shortcoming of all current tests... they can't distinguish between HIV that replicated within your own body, and HIV that simply came from someone else and ended up in your blood. In theory, someone who had a LOT of catastrophically-unsafe sex (barebacking as a bottom for poz guys with high viral loads frequently and repeatedly over the course of several days), but ALSO took Truvada for PrEP, could conceivably end up uninfected, but with enough HIV in his blood to briefly register with the best-available VL tests. In the past, the distinction was almost academic. If you had that much HIV in your blood, you WERE going to seroconvert regardless of whether it happened today or next week. PrEP kind of throws a monkey wrench into that assumption. Though, as pointed out above, if you had THAT MUCH HIV in your bloodstream, you'd probably end up on the cover of medical journals as an example of someone who managed to establish a viral reservoir without actually seroconverting until much, much later.

    20. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by Rick+in+China · · Score: 1

      The post was sort of a joke in terms of, NOT reliable, and could you imagine if you meet someone, and asked them "Hey do you mind if I prick your finger and we wait at least 15 minutes before we have sex?" I don't imagine it'd go down well, double entendre intended.

    21. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by Rick+in+China · · Score: 1

      I was being facetious.. there are some great potential applications, but the 'immediate' one - of being able to test someone you're *not* in a LTR with, seems impossible for many reasons. First of all it may give a very false level of confidence in that they may have contracted HIV and it hasn't yet gestated, and can you imagine if you meet some girl - take her home - say "Hey, mind if I prick your finger and we wait like, 20 min to continue?"...

    22. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I figured it was a joke, but as someone that has sex, I figured I'd correct anyone that thought otherwise.

      Especially with the cheap spit tests available now at drug stores.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    23. Re:Sex tourist's dream... by tjonnyc999 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I can completely imagine it. Instead of asking "hey, are you clean, have you been tested?" - which is perfectly acceptable (at least in major cities, I can't vouch for West Podunk, ND) - and *trusting* the person's answer (because we all know humans are 100% honest, 100% of the time, right?) - how about asking "hey, I'd like to not die in 15 years, so stick your finger in there and let me be a little more certain?".

  3. Target audience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who are they selling too? I'm not into the club scene but I can't really see many people looking for a one night stand using this. I can see doctors using this but at even 250 resale value they won't sell enough units to just doctors to make them capitalist idols.

    1. Re:Target audience? by masterofthumbs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm guessing the target audience is medical workers in poorer countries with limited access to labratory equipment to test for these diseases. The local doctor can come to the village with their smartphone, this device, and a bunch of clean needles for it. The more mobile and cheaper medical equipment can be, the easier it is to care for people. This doesn't address the idea of safe sex though, its just a piece of test equipment.

    2. Re:Target audience? by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing the target audience is medical workers in poorer countries with limited access to labratory equipment to test for these diseases.

      Exactly. And even in poor rural countries mobile networks often have better coverage and are more reliable than land-based communications, so having this technology on a mobile device may increase the utility for doctors and aid workers in rural areas. They could easily transmit the data to nearby hospitals, to patient families, or safer cloud data storage options.

    3. Re:Target audience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As you are speaking from personal experience and behaviors you will obviously be planning on being the first in line.

  4. Better Story Link by Fnord666 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is a link to the original article cited by the Times that contains more detail.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  5. The smartphone is a general purpose computer by ColdWetDog · · Score: 0

    And, if you hook the same chemical reactions and transducer technology to a smartphone you can reproduce the same information generated from those chemical reactions and transducers hooked to ... wait for it... a computer.

    I'm really not seeing the point here. HIV antibody and syphilis ELISA testing have been point-of-care for some time. You open up the foil packet, drop some serum in the little well, wait five minutes and your answer shows up without any further processing, electricity or fuss. The big problem with these type of tests, as far as undeveloped countries go, is that their design and manufacture require sophisticated first world systems. Nigeria has to buy them from Europe. It isn't like you can use the same smartphone dongle over and over again for very little cost.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:The smartphone is a general purpose computer by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      And, if you hook the same chemical reactions and transducer technology to a smartphone you can reproduce the same information generated from those chemical reactions and transducers hooked to ... wait for it... a computer.

      Smart phones are much more common than desktop computers in poorer countries. So yes, making a smaller, cheaper, reliable device for a smart phone is a big deal.

      It isn't like you can use the same smartphone dongle over and over again for very little cost.

      It isn't? Sure seems that's what they're doing, but I'd love to hear your logic as to why that's not what's happening.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:The smartphone is a general purpose computer by wed128 · · Score: 1

      "run assays on disposable plastic cassettes with pre-loaded reagents"

      There is some material cost to actually *using* the thing. It's unclear what that cost is, but there are disposable materials involved.

    3. Re:The smartphone is a general purpose computer by wed128 · · Score: 1

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/re... -- resource for the above quote.

    4. Re:The smartphone is a general purpose computer by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      FTFA (referenced by wed128), it uses some sort of 'disposable cartridge'. There are plenty of ELISA based throw away, non powered, no computer required tests available even over the counter. Pregnancy tests and drug screens are two really common ones.

      What I don't see is why the researchers had to hook the thing up to a smartphone (or any other bit of electronics) in the first place. Perhaps there are some technical details that require, for example, UV florescence to get the signal up but this isn't clear. They use a custom (read more expensive) cartridge for the three tests. You aren't going to get those things in a convenience store in the Middle of Nowhere. Especially nowhere's that can't even afford disposable gloves.

      Yeah, I'm being a bit snarky here but we've seen dozens of these things 'on a smartphone'. Touted for low resource areas because there are smartphones and little else but hampered by the fact that the smartphone really isn't doing all that much more than five dollars of cheap Chinese electronics could do and further they need some other expensive 'special sauce' to work. I would hope (vainly of course) that the 'journalists' could perhaps dive a few millimeters deeper than they do.

      But who am I kidding?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  6. Re:Get your own by bmo · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Pricking yourself with something that an infected person used is a sure-fire way to get an infection.

    It's as if you don't even know how diabetic test strips, and other test strips like this one, work, or even that lancets of all kinds are disposable.

    If you RTFA and click through to the Science Daily article, you'd read this:

    "During the field testing in Rwanda, health care workers were given 30 minutes of training, which included a user-friendly interface to aid the user through each test, step-by-step pictorial directions, built-in timers to alert the user to next steps, and records of test results for later review. The vast majority of patients (97%) said they would recommend the dongle because of its fast turn-around time, ability to offer results for multiple diseases, and simplicity of procedure."

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

    That is fucking spectacular.

    Shut the fuck up.

    --
    BMO

  7. Re:Get your own by masterofthumbs · · Score: 5, Informative

    The device has replacable cassettes that contain the reagents for the testing. To develop a device like this only to have it capable of spreading infection would be an incredibly stupid oversight.

  8. window period by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Too bad HIV has a window period of three weeks to three months.

    1. Re:window period by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      What's your point? Are you suggesting this device is therefore useless?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:window period by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WP:GF

    3. Re:window period by tjonnyc999 · · Score: 1

      The point of this device - or any other at-home/POC HIV screening test - lies in the "screening" part of the name. It's NOT designed to provide a 100% reliable answer, it's designed to SCREEN OUT those who are definitely infected, and definitely past the window period. Would you have sex with someone whose test results are DEFINITELY positive? I don't think so. There ya go. That's the point. If the results are inconclusive / not available, then use your discretion and use protection. But willingly stare down the barrel of a loaded gun? Let's prevent those situations.

  9. 1 step closer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to Mr. Spock's tricorder in everyone's pocket.

    1. Re:1 step closer by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      to Mr. Spock's tricorder in everyone's pocket.

      Spock - is that a tricorder in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me? Kirk out.

    2. Re:1 step closer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually this https://www.kickstarter.com/pr... is that step ...

  10. Re:Get your own by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 2

    Because the medical researchers who developed the AIDS testing smart phone attachment didn't think of that, and you did.

    --
    Join the IParty!
  11. Privacy concern by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Is the tool able to determine by itself locally the outcome of the data, or does it send the data for analysis remotely? If it's the latter, there's a big privacy concern here.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:Privacy concern by turkeydance · · Score: 2

      doesn't matter. if it's "in" or "on" a smart phone, it's available remotely.

    2. Re:Privacy concern by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Ok, everything is hackable, viewable etc... but the fingerprints for instance are voluntarily not transferred to Apple. So, someone may come and hack that - but that's a risk, not the same. If Apple makes the soft without transferring the info to their servers, voluntarily, that's a good start.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  12. Re:Get your own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlikely, at least in the US, that an individual could buy this.

    There is too much money in the healthcare system, to allow potential patients to bypass it.

  13. Testing, testing, is this thing on? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    Ok, tell the truth now: From just reading the headline, how many of you had interesting/disturbing/funny/twisted mental images of how one would test HIV with a smart phone?

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  14. Will be billed a lot more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bill for this will be

    $50 per use
    $10 for data
    $20 for phone use

    $50 for the tech (on it's own bill)

    $50 for reading the test (on it's own bill)

    + doctor fees.

  15. Re:Get your own by morgauxo · · Score: 4

    Hey, no worries, this is Slashdot!

    Give him a couple more years sitting on his couch-bed in his mother's basement drinking Mountain Dew and eating chips while playing video games and troling Slashdot.

    He WILL know all about lancets! Or be dead. One or the other.

  16. This Is Perfect! by sexconker · · Score: 2

    This is perfect for iPhone users!

    1. Re:This Is Perfect! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense - a wanker doesn't need to test himself for STDs ....

  17. Not new by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

    It's using the smartphone to display the results so they don't have to include a screen on the device, and it's using the power from the phone instead of having its own batteries. It's not exactly the smartphone doing any of the testing. It's just another case of normal computing done on a smaller computer somehow being news. They could easily add a screen and a battery but that would raise the cost of the device and not force users to have much more expensive smartphones. Sometimes it's far better to have a standalone device.

  18. Re:Get your own by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

    Are you retarded? If you answer no you should seriously get yourself clinically tested.

  19. Lateral Flow Strips are available by Russ1642 · · Score: 2

    http://www.artronlab.com/produ...

    These kinds of strips are far cheaper, easy to use, don't require power, don't require a smartphone, etc.

    1. Re:Lateral Flow Strips are available by odie5533 · · Score: 1

      Those don't attach to my smartphone.

    2. Re:Lateral Flow Strips are available by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      I find it neat that they look like pieces of paper and are super simple to use yet they're VERY high tech.

  20. Re:Get your own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Which is why all diabetics have to go to the doctors office several times a day to get their glucose tested.

  21. Re:Get your own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow you're a fucking moron. When I was born in the very early 80s we already had disposable lancets, syringes, and such.

    Plus we've got fucking AUTOCLAVES, which is literally a boiling-steam pressure-cooker dishwasher. Not much of anything survives those except the extremophile stuff found near ocean floor vents.

  22. Add it to the Police Lobby by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    More and more Craigslist purchases are occurring in police station lobbies to ensure the safety of both parties. This tech should be available as well for CL hookups (protected from tampering by either - any? - of the prospective partners, of course). I can't think a better way of striking a blow against STD transmission rates.

    Of course, it will never happen as this puritanical country (US) still can't come to terms with adult, consensual, out of wedlock casual sex., so STD away, as it's God's Punishment (TM) for daring to enjoy the pleasure he 'created'.

  23. Re:Should come free... by xmousex · · Score: 1

    so with the humans off the table what were you looking to reproduce with?

  24. Re:Get your own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Medical staff uses sterilized needles and never reuses them. Junkies do reuse needles and share them, even though that is an obviously stupid thing to do. Not everything which works with trained personnel is suitable for everyday people. Handling even smallest amounts of blood from high risk groups (who are probably most interested in getting tested repeatedly) is dangerous, whether the device is designed with disposable materials for everything or not.

  25. Re:Get your own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The very next comment after mine starts with "Imagine if you can prick the finger of a hooker in a Pattaya bar while you're drinking". Tell me again that warning people not to share a device like that is unnecessary.

  26. Accuracy by The+Raven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's the false positive and false negative rates of this cheap test, vs the normal one? While it's probably better to have a mediocre test rather than none at all, there are times when that's not true... high false positive rates for rare conditions can waste resources on healthy individuals. High false negative rates for common conditions can give patients a false sense of safety.

    The specificity of the test matters a lot before you can judge its utility.

    --
    "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    1. Re:Accuracy by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure this IS the 'normal' screening test. Same as you can get over the counter in a number of countries (as far as I can tell from TFA). They have just taped the HIV and Syphilis tests together. It apparently relies on antibody production so there is a lag period between exposure and a positive test.

      So all of the caveats of any HIV test except the direct polymerase chain reaction ones that can find a few viral particles floating around. If they can repeat that chemistry in a $34 device, that is interesting and novel since you could get a go / no go result instead of the caveat that you have to wait three to six weeks before you are confirmed negative. Of course, you still have experimental error, machine screwups, quality control, etc. to worry about.

      Wrap that rascal. It's the only way to be sure.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  27. The Perfect Accessory by BadPirate · · Score: 2

    For the Tinder user on the Go...

    --
    - Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
  28. Re:Get your own by bmo · · Score: 3, Informative

    The very next comment after mine starts with "Imagine if you can prick the finger of a hooker in a Pattaya bar while you're drinking". Tell me again that warning people not to share a device like that is unnecessary.

    So rather than read, you decide to double-down on the stupid.

    Let me explain this loudly and slower so you may understand.

    T_H_E__L_A_N_C_E_T_S__A_R_E__D_I_S_P_O_S_E_D__A_F_T_E_R__U_S_E

    Thrown away, into the trash. With the cap placed back on so nobody gets stuck. They come in boxes of 100 and they are fucking cheap. No sane person re-uses a lancet.

    You're exhibiting some weapons-grade stupid there, guy.

    --
    BMO

  29. Re:Get your own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drug Company CEO: Not enough people are buying our anti-flu medication.
    R&D guy: That's because people aren't getting sick enough.
    CEO: What do we do?
    R&D guy: I can invest a smartphone app to test for blood-based diseases.
    CEO: What good will that do?
    R&D guy: Do you have any idea how germ-ridden smartphones are?
    CEO: Jackpot!

  30. Re:Get your own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be Catch 23.

  31. Re:Get your own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're supposed to be disposed after use. You know some idiot will going around poking everyone for the fun of it and someone will keep reusing them to save a few cents, the environment, or because they're too lazy to change them or didn't bring any extra. I know some assholes who'll use this on people before deciding if they should bother talking to that person or not.

    The only way to prevent this type of abuse is to have each lancet destroyed by the device when it's used. Don't get me wrong, the device is great, but everything nowadays need to have potential abuses in mind when it's designed.

  32. Re:Get your own by bmo · · Score: 1

    >use an extreme outlier scenario. Evidence being: "I have friends who..."

    >represent this situation as "typical" and "this is why the test shouldn't be available.

    1. Your friends are violent criminals/psychopaths. They will harm people regardless of this being available. Pick some better friends.

    2. Fucking Really?

    --
    BMO

  33. Sensor by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    TFA does not say anything about the interesting part, the sensor: how does it works, and how many time can it be reused?

  34. app permissions by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 1

    The app requires access to:
    -your identity
    -your contact list
    -your call history
    -full internet access
    By using this app, you agree to our privacy policy.

  35. Re:Get your own by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

    I'm not retarded, my mother had me tested!

    --
    There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.